Thursday, May 7, 2020

More Comments from Readers – Part IX

Here are more comments that we have received from readers of
this website blog:Comment #1: “Where did Lehi enter the Empty Quarter? I understand that there is a
controversy over this” Phyllis M.

It should be noted that due east is a specific term
running along a latitudinal line. Giving some leeway to the use of the term, we
can assume that the direction “almost due east,” is used and not eastward, the
latter being a broader width

Response: Maybe not a controversy,
but certainly differences of opinion. First of all, we do not know exactly
where this took place, except that it was along the coastal area of the Red Sea
and would have been where the Frankincense Trail, coming from the Salalah area,
joined the coastal trail coming up from Sheba (now Yemen). At what exact point
these trails connect is unknown, since they were not trails, but simple
pathways, sometimes miles wide, leading from one water hole to the next.

The ancient city of Ma-rib in Yemen

It all depends on where the area
of Nahom was located, which some, like Wellington and Potter, claim was near
Ma’rib in present day Yemen. Ma’rib is located 75 miles east of Sana’a, which
is at the foot of Jabal Nuqum of the Sarat Mountain Range, which runs parallel
to the Red Sea. This is a region of a high plateau behind the mountains, running
from Abha in ‘Asir, Saudi Arabia to the southern area of Yemen, where it then
turns eastward and runs parallel to the gulf of Aden. Along this tree-shrouded plateau
in Arabia, the weather is cool reaching only about 90ºF. These mountains are
mainly rocky though some contain vegetation. Many of the peaks are fairly young
and jagged, and nearing the Yemeni border the Sarawat begins to spread into
individual peaks, and the Hejaz turns from a cliff to a gradual ascent up to
the Yemeni Plateau. In Yemen, the Sarawat are divided into the western and
central highlands. From these mountains the trail
drops down into the wilderness, which is where the southwestern part of Arabia, the Rub‘ al
Khali, called the Empty Quarter, meets the northwestern part of Yemen,
known as the Ramlat Dahm, the sands of Dahm. It is one of the most
inhospitable places on planet earth, if not the
most inhospitable. Which would have matched Nephi’s comments at this point in
their travel “And we did travel and wade through much
affliction in the wilderness; and our women did bear children in the wilderness
(1 Nephi 17:1).

The ancient site of Bisha in Saudi Arabia

On
the other hand, the Hiltons
claim Lehi turned east at Bishah, where the wadi Tabalah and wadi Bishah, pass through the mountains allowing camel
travel along the wadis. Here, between this huge section of the trail, from
Madina to Najran, Bishah is the closest trail oasis to the mountains, and thus
a logical place to leave the trail to find a refuge from the heat in the
mountains. However, Bisha seems to be too far north as the map shows for where
Lehi turned “almost due east,” since, as the map shows, Salalah would be
southeast of Bisha.Comment #2: “I read recently that “After the Law of Moses
was fulfilled, it is possible that the blessings of the land of promise were
extended, by way of the New Covenant, to other lands; previously excluded by
the strict requirements of the Law (3 Nephi 15:2; 20:14). I had never heard
that before” Woody P.Response: According to the two
cited scriptures, there is no basis for the comment. The disciple Nephi wrote: “And
it came to pass that when Jesus had said these words he perceived that there
were some among them who marveled, and wondered what he would concerning the
law of Moses; for they understood not the saying that old things had passed
away, and that all things had become new” (3 Nephi 15:2). And again, “And the
Father hath commanded me that I should give unto you this land, for your
inheritance” (3 Nephi 20:14). In both cases the
Lord’s comments to the Nephites have to do with their Land of Promise and that
the Law of Moses was fulfilled in him. To try and extend this to other lands
has no meaning on these comments and their explanations.Comment #3: “In an article about the Inka, the following
is stated: (Editor's
note: Some readers have asked—why "Inka"? Isn't it
spelled "Inca"? Although "Inca" is traditional and more
prevalent, the use of "Inka" is gaining acceptance as a more accurate
transliteration, as the National Geographic Style Guide notes. The NMAI
scholars who organized this exhibit and wrote the accompanying book have chosen
to use the new spelling, and in this case we're following their lead). I guess
you’ve been wrong about using Inca” Chipper O.Response: Well, this
just shows you that National Geographic doesn’t know everything. However, their
Style Manual under “Inca” does add:
“Some modern scholars prefer Inka, which they consider a more accurate
transliteration. If the newer spelling is used, it should be explained, or the
old spelling given in parentheses on the first mention.” They add: “NGS prefers
the traditional spelling, Inca, the spelling most familiar to readers.” Still,
after all that, they miss the point entirely.

The word “Inka”
(correctly spelled) refers to “The
Inka,” i.e., the king, emporer, or chief among the earliest Inca. In the
beginning they did not have the cultural name “Inca.” That was simply a title,
much like “king,” or “Ceasar (Kaiser),” etc. It became the name of the one
person who was the leader of the cultural group. Later, the term was expanded
to include the entire family of “The Inka.” Even later, it was expanded to
include the royal lineage, or all those of “The Inka’s” court. Finally, the
name was applied to the people as a whole—however, “The Inka,” retained his own
emphasis on his title (een-KAH) as opposed to (In-cuh) to separate himself from
the people, and the culture became known as the Inca. In Quechua, there really
isn’t such a separation; however, it was a royal decree that “The Inka,” be
separated in pronunciation and meaning (no doubt the pronunciation difference
was in emphasis and obviously not spelling)—not exactly something linguists
latch on to easily. But in the period of time we are discussing (prior to the
Spanish arrival), “The Inka,” was very powerful and held life and death over
everyone, obviously he saw himself apart from the rest and made sure his
subjects understood that, including his title (or name). Anyway, about a
hundred years ago, those who began working with the Inca history separated the
spelling of the name Inka from Inca for this reason, an understanding that has
pretty much died out today. I suppose one today could say there no longer is an
“Inka,” so there probably is no reason to use the “k” except when referring to
“The Inka,” or his family, or at
least his court (royals). Being a “purist” in such matters, I tend to use
“Inca” when talking about the people or culture as a whole, and “Inka” when
referring to those in charge, the leadership, court, or king (emporer). In case you are
interested, there are other Quechua words that are changing now with more
modern usage (Anglicizing has always been an important part of Englicizing the
world), “Cuzco” to “Cusco,”; “Huari” to “Wari”; “Nazca” to “Nasca”; and
“Tiahuanaco” to “Tiwanaku.” I suppose one could say that the original
pronunciation might have always been this but for the Spanish tendency to
“Spanishize” everything they came in contact with during the conquest and
occupation following.Comment #3: “Incredible! Your article on Nephi’s Temple
Like Solomons—Part II, brought tears into my eyes! Thank you for your amazing
comments. You have answered a lot of questions about Nephi's temple. I can't
wait to visit the place” Flamingo.Response: Thank you
for your kind words. Unfortunately, what is left of the temple today is merely
is foundation, though in the days of Garcilaso de la Vega, who was born in the
Viceroyalty of Peru to an Inca Princess and a Conquistador father, it was still
standing and he played in it as a kid, and wrote extensively about the
underground labrynth beneath the structure. Pedro Cieza de León, another
chronicler, also wrote about it.